Lords Sitting of 27 February 1866

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILL—Second Reading— Cattle Plague (27.)
SMALLPOX IN SHEEP.

  QUESTIONS.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDasked the Lord President of the Council, Whether the Government has received any distinct information respecting the existence of the smallpox among sheep in this country; if so, he wished to know in what counties it had made its appearance; and whether the Government intends to take any steps in the matter?
  EARL GRANVILLEreplied, he was sorry to say that the disease had broken out in Northamptonshire and also in another place. The Government had sent down an inspector into that county to make inquiries and send in a report on the subject.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHasked, whether the Government had taken, or contemplated taking, any steps at the ports of entry with a view to guard against the spread of the infection?
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that the Custom House authorities took the same precautions with regard to sheep arriving from abroad as had been taken for some time past with regard to the arrival of cattle.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONasked the noble President of the Council where the second case of smallpox had occurred?
  EARL GRANVILLEreplied, that unfortunately, he could not at that moment recollect where the second case had occurred.

CATTLE PLAGUE BILL—(No. 27.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I rise, in pursuance of an understanding come to last night, to move the second reading of this Bill. As I stated on that occasion, the Bill is not one which, while moving its second reading, I can treat in the ordinary way. It is usual, when the Government asks your Lordships to read a Bill a second time, for the Minister to defend its principle, and also to defend the details by which that principle is to be applied; but I cannot take that course on this occasion. As I understand it, the object
  1180
  of the Bill is to give effect to an opinion entertained by agriculturists and other persons that in regard to restrictions on the movement of cattle a uniform rule should be established all over the country, so as to avoid that confusion which it is supposed might arise from various regulations issued by local authorities by virtue of Orders of the Privy Council. I need scarcely observe that the subject is a very difficult one to deal with; and in any comments which I may offer on this Bill, I wish it to be understood that in no sort of way do I make any reflection on the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Hunt), who in the preparation of the Bill and its carriage through the other House bestowed so much attention on a subject so difficult and at the same time so important. The principle of the Bill is to prevent the movement of cattle by highways, canals, or rivers from the 1st of March to the 24th of the same month; but so many exceptions were found necessary that, as I stated yesterday, no less than sixteen were formally introduced into the Bill; and there are some additions to even those sixteen exceptions. The first provides that within any district which the Privy Council may declare free from the disease nothing in the Act shall prevent the removal of live beasts. In the same clause certain powers are given to the local authorities of these same districts to impose restrictions or conditions on the introduction of live beasts into their districts, and on the removal of beasts from place to place within them. Then there is an exception, in accordance with which beasts may be moved from one building, yard, or field to another, in the same occupation, on the public highway, for a distance of 200 yards; and a further exception, by which the distance may be increased to two miles in cases where a licence shall have been procured for the purpose of the immediate slaughter of the beasts at a slaughterhouse. Your Lordships will find that Scotland has been more liberally dealt with than England in regard to exceptions, for while in this country the distance for which cattle can be moved on any highway for the purpose of slaughter is limited to six miles, in Scotland there is no limit to the distance for which beasts may be moved for that purpose—in fact, an animal may be brought through the most infected counties of Scotland. Another of the exceptions is one in favour of sound milch cows moved in a covered

  1181
  van for the purpose of being placed on a vessel outward bound. There are exceptions permitting the moving of animals for breeding purposes. Another exception enables persons to send sound calves not more than twenty-one days old on any highway, in a cart or other vehicle, for a distance of ten miles, and there is another exception with respect to beasts imported. My Lords, I do not mean to cavil with these exceptions; but the mere fact that they are to be found in the Bill shows how difficult a question this is to deal with in detail. Those who have supported the principle of the Bill insist on the necessity of uniformity in the regulations against the cattle plague; but when we find that to the one general and principal provision of the Bill there are these numerous exceptions, I submit we are much more likely to create confusion than to establish any clear rule, and I fear we may conclude it will be quite impossible to have the details of the measure generally understood within the short time during which they are to be in force. It would appear that three weeks would not be too long a time to allow the local authorities to master the provisions of the Bill and put them in operation; but by that time these provisions will have expired. It is quite true that the Privy Council are to have power in regard to a renewal of restrictions; but from the first it has been contemplated by every one that at an early date all restrictions on the movement of cattle must be put a stop to; because it would be impossible to keep them in operation at the period when there is a considerable change of tenancy, and I need hardly observe that if we allow such provisions as these to drop and afterwards take them up again, such a proceeding will lead to very great confusion. On the whole, my Lords, I cannot but think that though the principle of this Bill is one of uniform restriction, yet so limited is the operation of that principle, owing to these numerous exceptions, that the provisions of the Bill are not so stringent as those which are being carried out by the local authorities under the authority of the Orders in Council. From the information which we are receiving I learn that the system in operation under the local authorities is now working very well. I cannot ask your Lordships to pledge yourselves to any particular provisions of this Bill, some of which I do not myself approve. At the same time, there are some of its clauses
  1182
  which will be very valuable additions to the Cattle Diseases Bill; and therefore I think we should do well to read it a second time, with a view to its careful consideration in Committee. There are many clauses which it would be a pity not to pass, and there are others which, with slight modifications in Committee, can be rendered very useful. There is apparently no reason, for instance, in cases where cattle are being illegally removed, why it should require but one justice to deal with the offending driver, while it requires two to deal with the beast. Clauses relating to the removal of hides, and also to the point which the noble Earl opposite mentioned the other evening as to the difficulty in some cases of finding a sufficient quantity of earth to inter diseased animals, are also, I think, susceptible of useful handling in Committee. Upon the clauses relating to cattle-trucks, pens, and one very useful restriction upon dogs, your Lordships also will, no doubt, wish to bestow attention. There are several other clauses of a miscellaneous character; but having briefly sketched the character of the Bill, and explained to your Lordships how it is proposed to deal with it, I do not think that I need enter into details, which will be more fitly considered by the Select Committee. Being anxious not to lose any time, I at first consulted with sonic noble Lords of great influence in this House the propriety of sitting to-morrow, contrary to the usual practice. I found, however, that it was quite impossible for Her Majesty's Government to fulfil their pledge of considering in the meantime what Amendments they would introduce. The earliest moment at which I can pledge myself that these Amendments will be in your Lordships' hands will be at the meeting of the House on Thursday. This also will afford time to noble Lords individually to consider what improvements they would wish to see made in this Bill, with a view of making its provisions such as they ought to be. If the Motion be agreed to, and the Bill be referred to a Select Committee, then, as it is most important that clear views should prevail on the subject, I hope that noble Lords who intend to move Amendments will be good enough to give notice of their nature, so that we may be in possession of the general character of all the Amendments before entering upon the discussion.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord President.)
  LORD BERNERSsaid, he should support the Motion for the second reading, regarding the measure as supplementary to that which had already passed. He would direct their Lordships special attention to the 28th clause, which related to the disinfecting the cattle pens and trucks by railway companies, which appeared to him to be very stringent. He was glad to observe that the powers of the inspectors had been to some extent restricted; but, on the part of a great body of the agriculturists of the kingdom, he felt bound to say that compensation to the amount of one-half was too little to induce farmers to come forward and give information as to the existence of the cattle plague, and he believed that in saying so he was but speaking the opinion of many Members of the other House as well as of a vast proportion of the agricultural body. The power which the Bill contained of preventing trespassers from entering upon the land was very salutary.
  THE MARQUESS OF BATHsaid, he agreed with almost everything which had fallen from the noble Earl the President of the Council, but differed from some of the conclusions drawn from those observations. A Bill of some sort was absolutely necessary; but if its duration were restricted to the 25th of March, it would be practically inoperative, because the shortest time in which it could pass would be about ten days, and between the passing of the Bill and the 25th of March it would be impossible for the country to become acquainted with its provisions and bring them into working order. The Government and the country must look upon this not as a temporary measure, but as a measure showing the way in which the cattle plague ought to be dealt with during the ensuing summer. He entirely agreed with the noble Earl that to include in the Bill detailed regulations and lists of exceptions on the subject of prohibition was most un-advisable. It was far better to prohibit the movement of cattle altogether, leaving a discretionary power in the hands of the local authorities. He regarded as a most valuable clause that which the Government originally proposed in the other House, empowering the local authority to decide upon the area to be treated as infected, for any rule laid down upon this point in an Act of Parliament was altogether deceptive. In some parts of England two miles, in others twenty miles, was not a long distance. As a rule the inspectors
  1184
  did not possess the confidence of the country, although no doubt many of them were persons of great merit. As to the question whether the proposed licences should be signed by one or more magistrates, he thought it desirable that more than one should sign them, but he must remind their Lordships that in many parts of England that was almost impossible. In conclusion, he would suggest that one of two courses should be adopted with a view to stop the movement of cattle. Either that Parliament, having prohibited cattle traffic, should leave it to the local authorities to say by what means the prohibition should be insisted upon; or else that the local authorities should be left to impose such restrictions as they thought fit upon the movement of cattle. He did not, however, think so well of the latter course as the former, because it would be throwing too much responsibility upon the local authorities.
  THE EARL OF WINCHILSEAthought the Bill had come before their Lordships a little too late; had it come earlier, however, it would have been most useful, for while the plague was within a small compass it might have been stamped out; but that could not be done now. With the solitary exception of the clause preventing the importation of live foreign cattle to renew the plague, he was of opinion that the provisions of the Bill, if they became law, would simply add annoyance to the injury caused by the plague. How could they expect the provisions of the Bill would put an end to the disease when it was increasing every day? The inspectors reported 13,000 cases a week. Most probably, if full returns had been made by all the inspectors, they would be told the number was 15,000, and, no doubt, in a short time it would be 20,000. It had been well said the disease was an infliction by Providence. He acknowledged it as such; and, at the same time, recognized it as a visitation of improvidence. Bad arrangements had created the disease, and the country must pay the penalty. He feared that the enactments of this Bill would not secure the end in view, and that a Bill containing better considered provisions would he found necessary.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHwas glad the noble Earl the President of the Council had taken the initiative in proposing that this Bill should be referred to a Select Committee; but the desired to make some observations upon the subject of the compulsory and indiscriminate slaughter ordered

  1185
  by the Bill which they had already passed. Public opinion was rapidly changing in respect to the advisability of adopting the principle of indiscriminate slaughter, and he thought that it would be found necessary to relax the severity of the rules now in operation. He would remind their Lordships that the first Report of the Commissioners was decidedly against the principle, and he should be glad to hear some account of the reasons which had since induced them to alter their opinion and report the very opposite. It had been said in support of the principle that it was adopted with much success upon the Continent; but he would remind their Lordships that in foreign countries the system was carried out under peculiar circumstances. When the disease broke out in an isolated district a military cordon was drawn around the place, and not only was it forbidden to remove the hides, hoofs, and other similar things, but even persons were not permitted to go out from the district; so that complete isolation was ensured. Under such circumstances, the system of indiscriminate slaughtering might he successfully carried out; but in England it was impossible to secure complete isolation, and his belief was that the Act would result in the needless destruction of a vast number of animals which would otherwise have recovered. In his part of the country the regulations as to slaughtering had come upon the farmers quite unawares. They had no notion of the severity of the measure which had been enacted until it came upon them with the force of law, and, of course, they were most unwilling to have their convalescent cattle destroyed. The feeling of dissatisfaction was therefore becoming very strong among the farmers, especially as the percentage of recoveries were daily increasing—for whereas formerly the proportion of cattle that recovered was 10 percent it was now, whatever the reason might be, 30 or 40 per cent. He therefore trusted their Lordships, who would consider the Bill in a Select Committee, would see the necessity of adopting some measures to modify the orders for indiscriminate slaughter contained in the Act which had been passed. He would also advert to another point of importance, It was most desirable that their Lordships should be put in possession of the number of cattle in this country, and compulsory powers to obtain it should be held by the Government. In conclusion, he joined with the noble Lord who had preceded him when he expressed a hope that
  1186
  out of a fair and impartial consideration of the provisions of the Bill before them some means might be adopted which, under the blessing of God, would tend to stop the fearful scourge now visiting the country.
  THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAMdesired to call to the attention of their Lordships that the time was approaching when every one of the Orders in Council relating to the movement of cattle would have to be revised. About the middle of next month, from change of tenancy and other causes, considerable movements of cattle must take place, and he feared that when these Orders came to be revised by the local authorities, they would get into great difficulties and trouble. He thought it would have been better for the country if the Government had availed themselves of this Bill to introduce clauses giving effect to some of the proposals of the measure brought in by the Government in the House of Commons at the meeting of Parliament. He thought also that the powers should be taken for a much longer period than three weeks—a period which he thought utterly useless, for it was impossible to suppose that the cattle plague would have been got rid of by the 25th of March. He thought, therefore, that some prospective restrictions should be enacted, and he believed these restrictions would be better carried out by Parliament than by allowing the local authorities latitude in dealing with the disease. If this Act were not passed it would be open to the local authorities to throw open markets and fairs throughout the country.
  THE EARL OF ROMNEYwas understood to say, that if their Lordships had gone into Committee he should have proposed certain exceptions with regard to portions of Kent.
  Motion agreed to: —Bill read 2a accordingly, and referred to a Select Committee.
  The Lords following were named of the Committee; the Committee to meet on Friday next, at One o'Clock, and to appoint their own Chairman:

  His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales

  E. Doncaster

  E. Airlie

  E. Cowper

  Ld. President

  E. Spencer

  Ld. Privy Seal

  E. Carnarvon

  D. Richmond

  E. Grey

  D. Marlborough

  L. Berners

  D. Buckingham and Chandos

  L. Stanley of Alderley

  L. Lyveden

  M. Salisbury

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE—ELECTORAL RETURNS.

  RETURNS MOVED FOR.
  LORD STRATHEDEN, in moving for certain Returns relating to the number of Voters and £10 houses in England and Wales, said, that a general impression existed that the proportion of electors to the population had of late years declined. He had no doubt that vague assertions to this effect had been made to their Lordships; but as far as he was aware there was no evidence to prove the truth of such statements. If he was not mistaken it was shown during the inquiry made upon the subject in 1860 that in some constituencies the percentage of electors to the population was much larger than at the time of the Reform Act. On another point much doubt prevailed as to whether the proportion of houses above compared with those below a £10 rental. Some persons believed that the proportion of the £10 houses was increasing in boroughs, whereas others were of opinion that, owing to the destruction of low-class houses for railways and other purposes, the proportion was diminishing. In order to clear up the matter, he now begged to move for Returns showing the proportion of voters to population in the general election of 1835 and in the general election of 1865, and showing the proportion of houses at and above the value of £10 and the houses beneath the value of £10 in boroughs of England and Wales during 1835 and 1865. The noble Lord then moved—
  "That there be laid on the Table of this House Return showing the Proportion of Voters to Population in General Election of 1835 and in General Election of 1865: And also,
  "Return showing the Proportion of Houses at and above the Value of £10 to Houses beneath the Value of £10 in Boroughs of England and Wales during 1885 and during 1865."
  EARL RUSSELLsaid, he was afraid that the Returns, if agreed to by the House, would not furnish the information the noble Lord desired. In the first place, there were no Returns of the population for 1835. There were certain Returns for 1865 which would before long be laid on the tables of both Houses; but as to the other Return, the only Office from which it could be obtained was the Poor Law Board; but he had inquired there and had been informed that it would be quite out of the question to attempt any such Returns, because no parish could inform them
  1188
  with any accuracy of the number of houses below £10 in the year 1835 within their boundaries. The Government had ordered Returns bearing on the electoral question which had been in preparation since November last, and those papers would show, he thought, everything which could be presumed to appertain to the subject. If, however, the noble Lord should think those Returns, when produced, insufficient, he could move for additional Returns. But he thought it would be useless to order a Return that could not be produced. There were 1,600 parishes in boroughs sending Members to Parliament; and to ask them what was the rating of every house thirty years ago would be a useless attempt. He could not, therefore, consent to the Returns asked for.
  LORD STRATHEDENsaid, that after the explanation of the noble Earl, he would withdraw his Motion.
  Motion (by Leave of the House) withdrawn.

THE CATTLE DISEASE IN SCOTLAND.

  MOTION FOR A PAPER.
  THE EARL OF AIRLIE, in rising to move for a copy of a Memorial to the Privy Council from the Proprietors and Tenant Farmers of Kincardineshire, praying for the suspension of that part of the Act of 29 Vict. c. 2, Clause 15, which relates to the slaughter of cattle, and for a Copy of the answer to that Memorial, said: The memorial for which I move is one which I am told had been signed by a large number of men of the highest standing in the county of Kincardine, and by many of the most respectable tenant-farmers of that county. I have not seen the memorial; but I understand that the memorialists state that, under a system of cure which they have recently adopted, they have succeeded in saving 90 per cent of the cases submitted to that treatment. The memorial is signed, amongst others, by Sir Thomas Gladstone; and it is possible that your Lordships may have observed a letter from that gentleman in the morning papers of to-day, in which he states that out of fifty-three cases submitted to a particular mode of treatment, no less than forty-seven are doing well. Now, I think it is very desirable at this time that cases of this kind should be brought under your Lordships' consideration. You have recently passed an Act authorizing the indiscriminate

  1189
  slaughter of cattle; and I think it is right, if that Act is to be continued in operation without any modification whatever, that you should be made aware of what it is you are doing, so that if this principle of indiscriminate slaughter is to be persisted in, it will at least not be carried out in ignorance of the consequences. Now, my Lords, I observe that Her Majesty's Commissioners, in their second Report of the cattle plague, after giving the number of diseased animals which were killed, what died, what recovered, and what were unaccounted for out of 120,740 cases down to the 27th January, go on to say—
  "From the above figures it will have been observed that as the number of diseased animals killed has diminished, the percentage of attacks among the animals exposed to infection has increased, whilst the percentage of deaths from disease among the animals attacked has risen still more steadily and in a greater proportion. Were slaughtering entirely abandoned the recoveries would probably not exceed 15 per cent."
  I think that the recent Returns bear out the results of that observation. According to the last Return, if you take throughout the whole country, the average number of recoveries as compared with the total number of cases does not amount to more than 12 per cent. But there is nothing more remarkable than the amount to which the death-rate varies in different localities. I am afraid, in order to make myself fully understood, that I shall have to trouble your Lordships with some figures; but a matter of this kind is one which turns almost entirely upon figures and statistics. I take it that your object is to save as large a number of cattle as possible; and it he-comes a question of figures whether it is desirable to slaughter a certain number, and what percentage of the animals attacked recover. Turning to the last Report which has been issued by the Veterinary Department of the Privy Council, I find that in the English counties the percentage of recoveries to cases has been rather more than 10 per cent—about 10½ per cent. In the Metropolitan Police district the percentage of recoveries has been 4, and in Wales 12; while in Scotland it has been 20 per cent, so that hero you have a margin of nearly 16 per cent between the greatest proportion and the smallest proportion of the recoveries in different districts. But the discrepancy, I say, is still more remarkable in the percentage of recoveries if you take particular districts. To show this, I will take four counties in England and four counties in Scotland.
  1190
  I will take in England the counties of Cambridge, Chester, York, and Kent. In those counties I find that from the first outbreak of the disease down to the 19th of February, there have died from the disease, and been killed as diseased animals, 51,863; 7,392 have recovered, so that the average of recoveries to deaths has been 1 to 7. In Cambridgeshire, 4,656 died and were killed; 356 recovered, and the proportion of recoveries to deaths was 1 to 13. In Cheshire, 28,480 died; 7,506 recovered—the proportion of recoveries being 1 to 11. In Yorkshire, 17,365 died, and 4,445 recovered—the proportion being 1 to 4; and in Kent, 1,362 died, 85 recovered—the proportion being 1 to 16. I will now take four Scotch counties—Forfarshire, Perthshire, Kincardineshire, and Clackmannanshire. In those counties the total number of deaths has been 12,945, and of recoveries, 4,819—showing an average of about 1 recovery to 3 deaths. In Forfarshire, 8,292 died, and 2,971 recovered—the proportion being about 1 to 3; in Perthshire, 3,424 died, and 1,336 recovered—the proportion being 1 to 3; in Kincardineshire, 983 died, and 323 recovered—the proportion being still 1 to 3; and Clackmannanshire, 246 died, and 189 recovered—the proportion of recoveries being 2 to 3. That Report is from the commencement of the disease down to the 17th February; but if you simply look at the return for the week ending February 17 last, the discrepancy is still greater. In the four English counties I have already referred to, 4,800 died, 733 recovered —the proportion of recoveries to deaths being a little more than 1 to 7, or nearly the same as during the whole continuance of the disease. But in the four Scotch counties of Forfar, Perth, Kincardine, and Clackmannan the total deaths were 797 to 422 recoveries—the proportion of recoveries having risen from 1 to 3 to rather more than 1 to 2; and these figures include also many of the old cases. In Forfarshire, 408 died and 206 recovered—the proportion of recoveries being 1 in 2. In Perthshire, 276 died and 136 recovered— the proportion being 1 in 2. In Kiucardineshire, 104 died and 69 recovered—the proportion being 3 in 5; and in Clackmannanshire the deaths were 7 against 11 recoveries—the proportion of recoveries being 11 to 7. In the English counties the average has not changed; but in the Scotch counties, while the average during the whole period was three deaths to each

  1191
  recovery, during the week ending the 17th February there were only two deaths to each recovery. I said the other day that in the county of Forfar the percentage of recoveries now amounts to nearly 50 per cent. I believe that I was within the mark in making that statement, for my hon. Friend the Member for the county of Forfar, who is himself a practical agriculturist and is thoroughly conversant with that part of the country, informs me that in the case of milch cows the farmers in Forfarshire now succeed in saving two out of every three. One of them writes as follows:—
  "In fact, deaths are becoming the exception wherever the owners are watchful and discover the first symptoms in time."
  He adds—
  "The farmers here are almost panic-struck by the strangeness of the Bill. They were in hopes of a large number of recoveries."
  In a letter from another farmer in the same county, the writer states that if the Act is put in force 2,000 cattle will be slaughtered, with regard to which at present there is a fair chance that from 1,800 to 1,900 might be saved. It is not only in Kincardineshire that the provisions of this Act are looked upon with consternation, but in Forfarshire, Aberdeenshire, and all the adjoining counties the greatest alarm and terror have been spread. And who can wonder at it? It is not the mere value of the animals destroyed, but the whole machinery of farming will be thrown out of gear. If the animals were destroyed where is the manure to come from? And, if the farmer cannot get manure, how is he to go on cultivating the land at all? I have never opposed the principle of extirpating the disease by slaughter when it can be done at a proper time and in a proper way. When the disease first breaks out, and you have only ten or fifteen centres of infection to deal with, by all means do all you can to extirpate the disease; but when it has ravaged a county from end to end—and in some counties at this moment there is hardly a single sound beast—it is the height of folly to apply the same iron rule as in cases in which the disease is only just appearing. And let me remind your Lordships that it is not only the animals affected by the disease that you run the risk of extirpating by this summary proceeding. Let me call your attention to what occurred the other day at Montrose. Professor Simonds, the Government inspector, went down there to report upon
  1192
  certain cures which were alleged to have been effected by Mr. Worms. Mr. Simonds reported that many of the cases were not cases of cattle plague at all. Now, if they were cases of cattle plague, Mr. Worms has succeeded in curing them; and if they were not cases of cattle plague the local inspector had certified them as such, and under this Act they must have been slaughtered. Surely, if the Government are to tie up the hands of the local anthorities by stringent rules, they are hound to furnish officers who can tell when an animal is suffering from the cattle plague and when it is not. When I turn to another section of the Act which you have passed, I find that you have made the inspectors absolute in this matter. It is provided in that section that the certificate of an inspector to the local authorities declaring that an animal is infected shall be conclusive evidence in all Courts of Justice and Law that the animal has been so infected; so that by that means you leave it in the hands of these ignorant inspectors appointed by the local authorities to slaughter wherever they think proper. We have heard a good deal about the recommendations of the Royal Commission; but I do not recollect that the Royal Commissioners distinctly in so many words do recommend the slaughter of animals. On the contrary, I find in the evidence given before the Commission a great deal that goes against the indiscriminate slaughter of cattle. I find that Professor Gertach, who was examined in Austria, only recommended slaughtering when the disease is confined to a small space. In France, a discretionary power is given to the prefects to slaughter. In Austria slaughter is only resorted to while the plague is confined within narrow limits. After it has spread beyond a certain range, it is considered that all attempts to extirpate the disease by destroying the animals is hopeless, and that the only remedy is rigid isolation. Under all these circumstances, I think it very difficult to acquit the Government of blame for the course they have taken in regard to the Bill that was passed the other day. We were told by Members of the Government again and again that the Sill had been hastily drawn up, and that it had been prepared in a great hurry. But I want to know why it was prepared in a hurry? The cattle plague was nothing new. We had had the cattle plague in the country for seven months; and the evidence given to the Royal Commissioners

  1193
  bad been before us for three months. Surely in the time that had happened since then the Government might have framed a measure worthy of being presented to Parliament when it met. I do hope that the Government will, at all events, consider it their duty to institute an inquiry in those districts where the disease appears to be just making its appearance. They ought to send persons down to ascertain first if the cases reported as cases of disease are really cases of cattle plague; and they should not allow this indiscriminate slaughter to go on without at all events giving us good reason to hope that it is absolutely required. The noble Earl concluded by moving an Address for—
  "Copy of a Memorial to the Privy Council from the Proprietors and Tenant Farmers of Kincardineshire, praying for the Suspension of that Part of the Act of 29th Vict. Cap. 2. Clause 15, which relates to the Slaughter of Cattle; and for a Copy of the Answer to that Memorial."— (The Earl of Airlie.)
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he did not think it necessary that he should now enter into discussion on a point which had been decided only a few days ago by a very large majority of their Lordships. He did not think it would lead to any practical purpose to go into the question, but he had no objection whatever to the production of the correspondence for which the noble Earl had moved.
  Motion agreed to.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, till Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock.